Case 6028881/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Jawula v Carey Olsen LLP — 2026
- Case reference
- 6028881/2025
- Decision date
- 6 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Jawula
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Jawula brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Carey Olsen LLP. The tribunal dealt only with the threshold question of whether the claim could proceed. It found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 barred an unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not provide an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.